Mons tribunal hearing?

[Ger Regan]

I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.

Indeed. Davies, Sidwell, Shorey, Harewood, Heskey et al spring to mind.

[KevinGage]

I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.

Whilst there was a degree of catching up required, we already had a solid base. It certainly isn't as if MON was completely starting from scratch.

Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books would have easily provided the springboard for a top 6 - 10 challenge for most competent managers.

[Villa'Zawg]

Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.

Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?

What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.

It's a bit hard to believe your comment about not giving a shit about O'Neill any more, given that pretty much everything you post is in some way about him - Lerner is a tight arse, Faulkner forced MON out, even - when people praise the Bent signing - yeah, but John Carew (a MON signing, lest we forget) was just as prolific.

That doesn't sound like someone who no longer gives a shit about O'Neill.

Incidentally, net spend table 2006-11

I mentioned it because if we don’t have one or two facts and a bit of context in these debates, there's a danger the screaming drama queens will end up dominating opinion on the basis of views that lack merit.

[Villa'Zawg]

Our squad when he bought the club for £64m was worth £40m + Gabby. We know that because that is how much we raised by disposing of that squad.

Out of interest, why the need to remind us how much he paid for the club in that sentence?

What are you getting at? Would it be a "he paid fuck all for the club .. he's invested bollocks all .. he's a tight arse" style line, by any chance? Apologies if it isn't, but that's the way it looks.

That part also assumes that the fee those players eventually went for (and some of them went for nowt remember) was the same as their market value in 2006. So it's flawed from the outset. Or the kind of selective figures one might use to prop up/ attempt to give credibility to an already weak argument. But VD wouldn't do that...

I wasn't trying to determine their sales value in 2006, I was using their actual sales value to determine the level of investment that has been made in the squad, it's the best figure to use.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

I really don't want this thread to go the way of so many others but we were paying catch up with squads who had far more invested in them over a much longer period and have a higher combined transfer vLue even now.

Whilst there was a degree of catching up required, we already had a solid base. It certainly isn't as if MON was completely starting from scratch.

Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books would have easily provided the springboard for a top 6 - 10 challenge for most competent managers.

Ironically we probably played better football before MON started spending.

[Concrete John]

Sorensen, Laursen, Mellberg, Bouma, Barry, Baros, Angel and quite a few promising youngsters already on the books

Sorry - can't agree with that.

If we're talking from an investment perspective, then you need to remove Laursen, Mellberg and Bouma, the best three players on that list, as they walked for nothing and we then needed to spend heavily to replace them.  Sorensen is a decent keeper and Barry obviosuly a great asset, but Angel was pretty much done and Baros was, quite frankly, shit.  And of these 'promising youngsters' - where are they now?  Gabby and the Bolton Defender turned out well, but look at where the likes of Ridgewell, Gardner and Moore are now.

The simple fact is that the side NEEDED big investment anyway just to stay away from the relegation zone.  The fact that we had the 4th highest net spend is an interesting one, but when you see Man City and Spurs above us (Spurs by £18m and already having a better squad in 2006 and City by £300m) is it any wonder they came ahead of us in that race for 4th?  The only one on there that shows us up is Everton. 

[Greg N'Ash]

that squad finished 6th though. All the reasons given for the decline of the current team could quite as easily be applied to that side, i.e. bad manager, bad morale

[Concrete John]

that squad finished 6th though. All the reasons given for the decline of the current team could quite as easily be applied to that side, i.e. bad manager, bad morale

It finished 6th in 03/04 and two key elements in that, Hitz and Solano, had left, plus it had a fresh and firing Angel.  It finished 16th just before MON arrived, as you well know.

[Greg N'Ash]

right so 3 players have gone so its now a shit squad needing major investment? Have to admit i never considerd Hitz are key playrt As i said, the bad finish in DOL's last season could be put down to the manager losing the plot and the awful morale.

[Concrete John]

right so 3 players have gone so its now a shit squad needing major investment? Have to admit i never considerd Hitz are key playrt As i said, the bad finish in DOL's last season could be put down to the manager losing the plot and the awful morale.

That side went from 6th, to 10th to 16th, so was on a decline.  Angel was the main goal getter, plus Hitz from midfield, and Solano our main creator.  It'd be like taking Bent, Ash and Downing out of what we have now.  I wouldn't call it a shit squad, but it did need investement, especially when it's three best players were about to either retire or leave on Bosmans.
 

[Greg N'Ash]

I'd agree it was in decline but then so is the current side. Good players have left and not been replaced and others have got past it.

[Concrete John]

I'd agree it was in decline but then so is the current side. Good players have left and not been replaced and others have got past it.

I think the major difference now is we have some re-sale value on the players going.  Ash is the obvious one, but I think we'll get circa £3m each for Dunne and Warnock, whereas Laursen and Bouma we got nothing.  It's also a better squad right now as evidenced by the difference between Angel and Bent.  So we'll need less money spent to get to 6th again than we did in 2006.

[Greg N'Ash]

well that with hindsight really. If Larusen hadn't have got crocked, we'd have pocketed more that what we'll get from Dunne and Warnock combined. Likewise, if Mellberg had been given a contract offer earlier he'd probably have had a re-sale value

[Chris Smith]

In DOL's last season we were reduced to having Bakke on laon and not being able to afford to keep him on. Anyone arguing other than that MON took over a squad in disarray is either on a wind up or rewriting history to support personal prejudice.

[Concrete John]

My argument is not that we should have got money for Laursen, just that his loss as a player meant we needed to replace him and things like that should be taken into account when we are examining MON's spending. 

Took over the 16th placed side, lost three key players for nothing and then made 6th spot ours.  During that time the club we often get compared to, Spurs, who finished 5th when we were 16th, have a net spend £18m greater than ours, yet people still ask why they could get 4th and we didn't.

MON is not blame free and shoud have used the money better in some areas, yet if we are going to look at the spending lets do it in the right context.